Sin Bomba

These losers can't dance. No bomba, no shake it, no heart, no soul. They blow themselves up to be cool.

Islam-bombing is a fad for losers who can't get a date.

Fascist Islam appeals to losers who want something more out of life than the mediocre rewards they get from their own personal efforts, which amount to very little due to the confines of Islam, the endless pity-party they attend; and to be somebody, even anybody other than just another Muslim loser, they take on personae as Big-Time Heroes! in their own minds, Martyrs of Allah, rather than small-time dope dealers, clerks at a convenience shop, carwash boys, or whatever. Suddenly, transformingly, the nobody is a big deal in the community. And let's stop pretending that the Muslim community doesn't aprove of the grand gesture of homocide bombing. The whole rotten lot get to live vicariously as heroes, if only for just one day. The loser culture of Islam cannot compete against the real accomplishments of the Western world. So, to make a name, to make a pose, to make a dent in the world of the living who don't really care about the losers, the losers blow up some people and get celebrated in their Moslem loser communities. Can't get a life? Get a gun. Can't get a date? Then kill someone.

The Muslim losers and their dhimmi cheerleaders resent their own lives, and they'll kill you to make their hurt pride look a little better from the outside. These people have nothing happening in their lives, no hope for anything good because they're roughly stupid and boring and incapable of much in the general world; and to be big, to be heroic, to be important, they wear costumes, they speak a jargon or an argot, they play at terrorism, they put on a childish indentity: It's: SUPER-BOMBER HERO-MAN! But the sad fact is these losers can't dance.

These little mama's boys can't get a date. So, like many guys who are too screwed up to do the wild thing, they play with themselves. Islam is for guys who jerk off. These guys can't score. Four wives, two dozen kids, and they still ain't makin' it. It's all a big empty show, cause these losers can't get it right with a girl. They can't dance, they got no bomba, they got no zip....

And who do we find holding their hand in the dark, stroking the Muslim ego?

Below we have three pieces on Islam, the skin-mag. religion, the first peices on the 7/7 London bombings and others focusing on the fiasco of the Manchester Guardian's employment of a Muslim terrorist supporter who crowed about one of his work-mates being murdered travelling to work. What we'll see, of course, is a faddist who can't deal with his own mediocrity, who has to assume a cartoon identity in the hopes that others will be too afraid of him to look closely enough to find out he's nothing but a goof who can't get a date. The Moslems live in a world of sexy girls who pick and chose, and the Muslims can't stand being laughed at. Trained from birth to think they're hot, the average Muslim losers can't find a way to cope with a woman who isn't impressed with the fact that the guy is a loser, and he can't dance. Sin Bomba, girly-men.

Our stories today are about the Muslim jerk-off Aslam, reporter at the Manchester Guardian who wrote that young Muslims in England are sassy, and they don't care if they rock the British boat. Far from ruling the waves, Britania rolled over till it turned out that Aslam the bomber tout is actually a member of a terrorist group himself. The Manchester Guardian hired this creepy loser, knowing in advance that he's a member of a fascist hate group. But he's such an asset to the image of the paper that if he hadn't actually belonged to the group but merely spouted the usual cliches, then it's likely the paper would have kept him on, even when one of the mates at the paper is murdered for the fad. As is, even dhimmi shite like the Guardian management had to say Aslam the fascist had to go, as we read below:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/

By Steve Busfield / Guardian 06:31pm

Trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam had his contract with the Guardian terminated today.

The move followed an internal inquiry into Aslam's membership of the political organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

A statement said: "The Guardian now believes continuing membership of the organisation to be incompatible with his continued employment by the company."

"Mr Aslam was asked to resign his membership but has chosen not to. The Guardian respects his right to make that decision but has regretfully concluded that it had no option but to terminate Mr Aslam's contract with the company."

The inquiry followed a piece written by Aslam for the Guardian's comment pages entitled "We rock the boat".

The statement added: "The Guardian accepts that it should have explicitly mentioned Mr Aslam's membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir at the end of his comment piece."
***
Below we get the full story from Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch a week after the first series of London bombings, and a week before the second:


From http//:dhimmiwatch.org


July 14, 2005
"Sassy" suicide bombers
Today's Muslims aren't prepared to ignore injustice. So says Dilpazier Aslam in "We rock the boat," a piece published in the Guardian (thanks to Scott Burgess, who blogs superbly on this here).

The Guardian is hanging with an interesting crowd these days. Aslam apparently also writes for the Hizb-ut-Tahrir pro-Sharia, pro-caliphate site Khilafah.com. In this piece, he says the British shouldn't be shocked by the bombings: they're all their fault:

If I'm asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. I think what happened in London was a sad day and not the way to express your political anger.
Then there's the "but". If, as police announced yesterday, four men (at least three from Yorkshire) blew themselves up in the name of Islam, then please let us do ourselves a favour and not act shocked.

Shocked would be to imply that we were unaware of the imminent danger, when in fact Sir John Stevens, the then Metropolitan police commissioner, warned us last year that an attack was inevitable.

Shocked would be to suggest we didn't appreciate that when Falluja was
flattened, the people under it were dead but not forgotten - long after we had moved on to reading more interesting headlines about the Olympics. It is not the done thing to make such comparisons, but Muslims on the street do. Some 2,749 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To discover the cost of "liberating" Iraqis you need to multiply that figure by eight, and still you will fall short of the estimated minimum of 22,787 civilian Iraqi casualties to date. But it's not cool to say this, now that London's skyline has also has plumed grey.

Shocked would also be to suggest that the bombings happened through no
responsibility of our own. OK, the streets of London were filled with
anti-war marchers, so why punish the average Londoner? But the argument that this was an essentially US-led war does not pass muster. In the Muslim world, the pond that divides Britain and America is a shallow one. And the same cry - why punish us? - is often heard from Iraqi mothers as the "collateral damage" increases daily.

Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this.

The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common
features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the
don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.


Consider the British boat rocked, you sassy suicide bombers.

Posted by Robert Spencer at July 14, 2005 06:55 AM |

***

So what does it take to shake the dhimmis out of their pose? These geriatric hippies are up to "here" in black turtle necks, and if these stiffies had to make a sudden move one can just hear the breaking of hip bones. No, one of their own dying in a bomb-blast on the tube ride to work didn't do it. It took a blogger to shake their stuff:

"The Guardian of the Caliphate"
By Val MacQueen Published 07/22/2005

Did Britain's leftist newspaper The Guardian know that its trainee reporter is an active member of the radical terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir and, if so, when did they know it?

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks to reimpose the Caliphate by the sword or, in today's world, the bomb, is a radical Islamic splinter group banned in most countries but legal in Tony Blair's Britain.

British blogger Scott Burgess became suspicious when he read an article by "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam in which the writer referred to today's youthful Muslim malcontents in Britain, including suicide bombers, as "sassy". Aslam suggested that no one should have been shocked by the suicide bombings on the London Transport system, because "shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of [Londoners'] own." Further down Aslam's article appeared this paragraph:

"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

Burgess wrote about the curiously sassy Dilpazier in his blog, The Daily Ablution, and did some fast follow-up work. He discovered that the Guardian "apprentice" did, in fact, have previous journalistic experience. Aslam has had incendiary pieces published in Hizb ut-Tahrir's own blood-thirsty magazine with articles in which he specifically called for the overthrow of the state and the forceful imposition of the Kilafah (the Caliphate) -- especially with reference to Israel. Burgess quotes from one of his articles: "Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state." Not even to a team! That's harsh!

The question Burgess, an American living in Britain, wanted cleared up was, when it hired Aslam as a trainee, did The Guardian know it was hiring a radical young man who had a history of promoting terrorism? Burgess guesses the answer is yes, on the theory that the best way for a young journalist to prove that he can write is to show the editors previously published work, and Aslam does not seem at first glance to be a young man who would miss a trick.

Burgess wrote a letter to The Guardian's comment editor, asking for an explanation that was met, of course, by a wall of silence.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that The Daily Ablution is a blog popular with people in the publishing industry, most mainstream media members kept their heads down and didn't rock the boat. Rocking radical Islamic boats, they are learning, is a dangerous business. However, surprisingly, fellow "liberal" paper, The Independent , (paid link omitted) home of loony anti-war greenies, haters of George Bush and carbon emissions jihadis, not only picked up the ball and ran with it, but succeeded in getting a response out of The Guardian, which wrote the weasel words that they had been thinking their journalistic staff was "too male and pale".

Hizb ut-Tahrir peddles such radical Islam that they don't even have time for Saddam's best friend and silver-tongued apologist for Islam George Galloway. When he was campaigning, during a recent by-election in London's heavily Islamic constituency of Bethnal Green & Bow, a crowd of Islamic thugs pushed their way into an apartment he was calling on and, refusing to allow him to leave, issued a freelance fatwah. Galloway, who knows these people better than do most Brits, was clearly frightened. In his own words: "Hizb ut-Tahrir suddenly filled the room and blocked the door.

"I tried speaking calmly. They then said I was parading as a false prophet and served a sentence of death on me. They were claiming I was representing myself as a false diety and for this apostasy I would be sentenced to the gallows."

Readers of Aslam's think pieces had no reason to know that they were tainted with the poisonous drip of radical Islam. Worse, though, was his reporting of events, rather than opinions, as though a dispassionate observer instead of a heavily involved activist.

A 15 year old Islamic schoolgirl in Luton decided the Islamic uniform the school had -- foolishly, in my opinion -- designed for Muslim girls wasn't Islamic enough to satisfy her burning religious fervor. She lobbied for permission to wear the full Muslim monty. The school said no. She was encouraged to fight her case all the way up to the court of appeal, along the way giving the papers some suspiciously sophisticated quotes for a little adolescent attention-seeker. Where was she getting the wherewithal and the encouragement to pursue this essentially vexatious case? Uh, none other than Hizb ut-Tahrir. She finally triumphed, with the help of famed "human rights" lawyer Cherie Blair, and sassy Dilpazier wrote of her ecstasy ("I could scream with happiness!") in The Guardian , supposedly as a dispassionate reporter, without mentioning that he was a member of the radical organization, which had promoted the case .

Even after he was outed by Scott Burgess, the paper continued to publish his work.

This whole disreputable episode is made even more ironic by the fact that, on that sickening morning, a British Guardian employee lost his life in the bombings.
Val MacQueen is a TCS contributing writer.

http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/
***

And what's the outraged response from the world of journalism? Hold your seat steady:

'We Don't Need to Fight, We Are Taking Over!'
By Paul J. Cello Published 07/22/2005

The bombings two week ago in London concentrate the mind on three questions, all of them exceedingly difficult, and the first two of which profoundly complicate the all-important third.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" ["Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist] said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

The first difficult question is: Is this the authentic voice of Islam? And it is a question that no non-Muslim can presume to properly answer. If I answered, "Emphatically yes, this is the authentic voice of Islam: and it is also the voice of our enemy," men would rise in righteous anger at my presumption. But when our leaders -- non-Muslims to a man -- pronounce in solemn tones, just as confidently, "No; Islam is a religion of peace," there are no charges of presumption.

What we can say confidently, while yet avoiding the presumption, is that those who believe that "civilization" should be "brought" to us by the gruesome massacre of London commuters, or Spanish commuters, or New York office-workers, believe this because, over and above it, they believe the claims of Islam. In short, we non-Muslims ( while we are still free to speak our minds) can appropriately say that our enemies strike against us in the name of Islam; they find their inspiration, their motivation, their justification, in the precepts of this great religion which has stood as the adversary of our once-unified civilization for many a long century. It may be that they have perverted the teachings of this religion; it may be that they have misunderstood some of its ambiguous teachings; but it may also be that they are faithfully applying those teachings. Again a non-Muslim is in no position to judge of this.

The second question goes to the very heart of the theoretical framework American leaders have sketched as a solution to the problems of the Muslim world. In brief, it calls into question the whole solution itself, and may force us back to the drawing broad, so to speak, if we are serious about facing it. The question is this. If it is demonstrated, as now seems pretty clear, that the perpetrators of the London bombings were British citizens or legal residents, will there be any reflection on what this means for the neoconservative theory that democracy is the cure for Islamic terrorism? If, in other words, the perpetrators of these bombings were citizens or long-time residents of one of the world's most stable and historic democracies, and thus partakers of all liberty and equality that is offered as the panacea for the troubles of the Muslim world, what does it say for the plausibility of said theory that London's first suicide bombers were reared up in the very cradle of Western liberal democracy?

Just maybe, it says that there is something unique about Islam that confounds our facile universalism, something unique and ancient about Islam that renders nugatory the easy platitudes so dear to us, something unique and ineradicable that reveals (yet again) that there are deeper things to stir the hearts of men than material prosperity and free elections.

But here is the really pulverizing question -- pulverizing not least because it is so muddled by the difficulty of the foregoing two. But being muddled, it is no less important. By now, every free nation in the world still possessed of its senses knows it must face this self-interrogation: Are we or are we not going permit (or perhaps continue to permit) the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? Again I deliberately leave open the question of whether "totalitarian Islam" really means "Islam in the modern world" or merely "a perversion of Islam in the modern world." But to repeat: The people of the free nations of the world, the citizens of the West (or her descendents if in fact the West is no more), are now confronted with sufficient evidence that the efforts to call totalitarian Islam into existence in every free nation are well underway; that such efforts will be materially supported from the home bases of totalitarian Islam, and may be spiritually supported by the very nature of Islam as such*; and that those efforts can, at least to some degree, be encouraged or discouraged by the actions of our own governments.

The instinct of most of us is not even to face the question, to decline the self-interrogation altogether, and get on with our barbeques and reality shows; but face it we must, because ultimately the threat it signifies is neither fleeting nor mild, but rather persistent and existential.

The answer we should give is this. We -- whatever other free nations choose to do or not do -- are going to put certain considerable obstacles in the way of totalitarian Islam; we at least are not going to encourage its development on our shores; we at least are going to say, in the manner republics "say" things publicly, such that it is clear to the leaders of this movement, its sympathizers and facilitators, both here and abroad, to the world at large, and most importantly to ourselves, that we will not tolerate totalitarian Islam. Rather, we will place very substantial burdens and abridgements, of varying social, political and legal character, upon those holding the beliefs associated with totalitarian Islam. We will make the price for sympathy with it very high indeed. We will not extend to it our beloved constitutional and civil rights; we will not, to the extent possible, let its sympathizers and facilitators, much less its foot soldiers and officers, into our country, and we will deport with dispatch those already here; we will exclude its representatives from service in our government, status in our society, safety under our laws; we will, in short, prohibit totalitarian Islam, in thought, word and deed.

Now we will, to be sure, make every effort to distinguish between our real enemies and those merely linked to them by accident of birth or confession. We have always been a generous country, and we will take heed not to forsake that generosity now, not least because we know that extending it to the right people will help us in this war immensely. We will be discerning, and when failing to discern, genuinely contrite. But we will give no quarter to our enemy. We will make him fear: fear that we are onto him, fear that we have turned his neighbors against him, fear that we have made him our agent without his knowing, fear that perhaps this radical Islam thing may be more trouble than it's worth -- or better: fear that, after all, it may be a little off in its apprehension of the duties of man to God.

And make no mistake: this is no mere matter of Free Speech. The Islamist being struck at is generally not the Islamist attempting to exercise his constitution right to free speech; it is rather the Islamist who, having given his allegiance wholly to totalitarian Islam, has acted to systematically conceal this fact. We will not merely abridge his freedom of speech; we will also abridge his freedom of thought.

Now often the way a republic speaks is through legislation, and if legislation is called for, let our politicians find some time in their busy schedules to actually legislate. This is tough stuff: no one said it would be easy. If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from First Amendment protections under "clear and present danger" precedents, let it be done. If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from Equal Protection considerations, let it be done. Would such things be delicate business? Indeed it would: among the most delicate we as a people have ever undertaken. But that, friends, is the burden of self-government. And even if legislation along these (admittedly a bit shocking) lines is never enacted -- even if it is never even really considered -- we as a people must face the question I posed above: Are we or are we not going permit the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? We must face it and answer, such that most everyone understands, No.

Paul J. Cella III edits the weblog, Cella's Review.

* I know this sort of talk makes many people, even some of my own political allies and friends, very nervous -- heck it makes me nervous. But I will not close this question; will not even pretend that it is a question we infidels can close. The true answer, I fear, is quite indifferent to our nervousness.

http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/
***

And you were nervous that the world wouldn't take this problem of out of control loser Muslim killers seriously! Heck, it makes me nervous too.

Oh, well, no it doesn't.

We're facing a billion people who don't have a clue how to live in the modern world. Most of them are so afraid of change and the unknown that they'd rather pull the covers over their eyes and go back to sleep-to-death than face the fact that they're finished if they don't wake up and get moving. They won't move on their own except to kill those who pester them in the course of their dreams.

Forced out of the cocoon of Islam and into the world of the actively alive they find children to explode. The majority of Muslims find any stupid excuse they can to pretend away the failure of Islam as a culture, and they have found enough allies in this phantasy, our very own dhimmi Leftists and idiot conformists who parrot any idiot cliches going, that the meme is that it is indeed the fault of the West for stirring up this trouble in the first place, like those damned Crusades about a thousand years ago. Or whatever today's excuse is. And thew Guardians, those self-righteous pukes, scold us for this and that, who cares what it is on this or that ocassion. Oh well, one of the mates died in a bombing on the tube ride, but we were so pale, so classist, so petit-bourgeois that one of ours gone missing in the cause stands us good stead in the dhimmi community.

Like Christopher Walken's character in Next Stop Greenwhich Village, a girl who knows him too well says: "Under all that pose--you're just...more...pose.

This is a dirty game played by poseurs and losers, all of them playing at cartoon heroes. They dress up in blackshirt turtle necks and suicide bomb-belts and they make a big show. But these are losers who just can't dance.

Ladies, I happen to love to bomba.